Woolworths are applying for a generic trademark - ie, one that could conceivably (although clearly unlikely) be applied to computers - this is what Apple is attempting to prevent.
What if Woolworths makes a handheld iPod-like device (or an app for the iPhone) that enables you to buy fruit in store by just taking pictures of the barcodes and then going to the till and getting it scanned, and then a staff member goes off and collects all your produce and delivers it to your car/home/etc, and then puts this logo on there.
90% (or more) people are clearly going to see that it's not a product made by Apple, but it is in Apple's interests to protect their trademark in their product area.
Woolworths has no such device or app, but a generic trademark would allow them to brand it as such in the future if they ever do produce something like that. Apple is just pre-empting it.
There are plenty of apple logos out in the world that don't conflict with Apple computer - the ones Apple feel might do in the future, they will address.
Trust me, there are just as many "zealots" that will do the exact same thing if you post anything positive about Apple.
It's not about the facts for either of the two ends of that spectrum, it's all about bludgeoning your "point" across with stupid moderation. It's also the reason that clearly, blatantly false information that is either pro/anti $LARGE-COMPUTER-MAKER will get +5 insightful very quickly, even if 2 seconds on Google will show you the information is clearly false.
It happens in MS threads, Apple threads, Linux threads all equally (in pro and anti forms).
People criticising Apple (justly or not) are not unique in their illegitimate threats to their karma scores.
And protecting your trademark is a requirement to keeping it, so Apple had no choice, even if the logos only have a passing resemblance (both are very obviously images of apples) and they are both in different markets, they have to at least put in a token trademark infringement suit, even if it goes nowhere or is dismissed.
If they do not do this, they face the possibility later down the line that their trademark becomes generic (whether you can argue that a stylised fruit is generic already is debatable), since if they don;t defend their trademark, it becomes fair game.
Incidentally, Apple (computer) settled the trademark infringement suit with Apple records for a cash sum and an agreement to stay out of the music business - an agreement Apple records later sued Apple (computer) for because they claimed that playing back MIDI files was "entering the music business".
Being the music industry, you can see how they thought that - they're not ones to allow facts to get in the way of a good lawsuit.
You really don't understand what a monopoly is do you?
the USB IF acts to maintain the USB standard - and it features vendor ID codes that are assured (by the specification) to be unique to each individual vendor who uses them.
They *must* act to prevent other companies from just deciding to use a Vendor ID *that does not belong to them* (read: have not licenced to use because the ID has been licenced by someone else, namely Apple).
How on earth did this get +1 informative?
The sole reason the USB IF exists in the first place is to prevent (or correct) issues like this arising, when one company breaks the spec for their own ends.
It's not even code theft. It's reporting to be Apple, using a vendor ID unique code that Apple paid the USB IF for - a code that was assured to be unique to Apple.
No one is breaking the law on either side. Palm is breaking a contract with the USB IF though, and Apple has every right to ensure that devices that report Apple's unique, purchased USB ID on the USB bus are in fact Apple devices.
The analogy I would use is that Palm is forging tickets to a free concert put on by Apple - it's not illegal, and the concert venue has every right to impose more stringent security checks to look more closely for fraudulent tickets.
It does exist. Palm is just lazy, and it seems you are too.
I have used several non-Apple music players with iTunes belonging to various friends from multiple vendors and they sync just fine.
It's not as elegant as an iPod, since it doesn't use the main Library file, but it does use the plaintext XML file that iTunes keeps up to date with its main library. This file does contain playlists, tracks, info and so on that allow you to sync with iTunes.
Apple is complaining because it signed a contract with the USB IF and paid a great deal of money/legal expense/time/hoop jumping to obtain a USB vendor ID: a unique identifier for their company, assured by the USB IF that any device that reports this little code is an Apple product.
They're not complaining about competition. They even offer a way to use third party music players sync and work with iTunes - they just don't include in the instructions and API "copy our vendor ID and pretend to be an iPod".
Palm has no legal right to do anything of the sort. They are in breach of contract with the USB-IF by using Apple's vendor ID but that's not illegal (in so far as the act itself isn't, and breach of contract between two entities is not a crime).
Apple has absolutely no obligation to provide third party compatibility with iTunes for third party devices - they do offer an API that allows you to use third party devices with iTunes, but Palm has chosen not to go that route. Apple also does not have a monopoly on the music and cellphone market, and they don't have a monopoly on jukebox music software (that they give away for free I might add) or even online music stores (not that the iTMS has anything to do with this dispute, unless you choose to buy songs on there, and even then you can easily [using iTunes] move them into a format that will work with any music player).
iTunes exists to support iPods and iPhones. They have absolutely no obligation to make it play nice with third party players - they give it away for free after all, and it is very clear what it is designed to do.
Apple is very clear about what it offers up front - if you don;t want to be part of the vertically integrated experience, with all of the benefits and downsides that come with it, then you are free to use other software and hardware.
What's not ok is if you're Palm and you say "well, we want to use iTunes, an app given away by Apple for free, to sync music and photos with the Pre, and we're going to do that by spoofing Apple's purchased and contractually protected USB vendor ID" - are you really surprised Apple is stopping this?
Hint: it is not illegal for them to do so, nor is it illegal for Palm to do what they are doing. They are breaching their contract with the USB IF though, which is a matter between Palm and the USB IF.
Note the silence of the "Mac Jihad" when you're the second person to post, and anonymously at that. Really sure of your argument there, sonny eh?
Apple are still supporting older versions of OS X to this day (just upped a PPC to latest 10.5 with a recent security patch to boot), and kept up with the Classic environment for a long time.
10.6 is Intel only, but that was not surprising at all.
Other than just getting in a cheap jab at Apple while you were (incorrectly) bashing Linux for "abandoning customers", do you have anything to back up your weak arguments or did you go to the Right Wing Talk Radio Host school of debating?
No, that's not it - you are advocating the deliberate breaking of the USB IF contract that Palm signed because you think they should be allowed to break the rules "in this case".
I am saying that whether you love Apple or hate them, is irrelevant, Palm just cannot do that.
No, Apple corrected a flaw in their implementation of the USB spec that Palm exploited to get free syncing to iTunes. iTunes should never have trusted the product code alone for this very reason, and whether any incompatibility issue arose (it didn't in this case) like the drive being erased, or strange interactions with the drivers because the device is not what is expected, really have no bearing on that.
Palm then decided to break the terms of their contract with the USB IF and spoof Apple's vendor ID.
Whether you think it's "morally" right that Plam can use Apple's Vendor ID means jack shit: Palm signed an agreement with the USB IF that they would not do such a thing.
Whether you agree with Apple shutting this down is utterly, utterly irrelevant.
Except that this entire issue with the USB IF is about Palm using Apple's *vendor ID* which is totally 100% unique to Apple and should never be used by anyone other than Apple.
You can't "spoof" a product ID - the product ID is unique only when combined with the Vendor ID. It's perfectly possible for two different USB devices to have the same product ID totally by coincidence, since the product ID is for the manufacturer to differentiate between its own products - the Vendor ID+Product ID is what is unique.
The Product ID alone should not be used to uniquely identify a device.
That would be the case if your device was something standard like a USB mass storage device - an iPod, however, is not such a thing.
Sure, I suppose it *could* be, but as well as being a glorified flash drive, it also has it's own OS, and various other things that make it distinct from other cellphones/iPods/music players/etc.
The USB vendor ID exists for this exact reason, so that while the connector and general USB protocol is universal, you can do things with the attached devices that are unique to them, like upgrading the firmware for example.
What would happen if the Pre had identified itself as an Apple device and iTunes sent some code to it that was meant to do one thing, but actually erased the Pre's memory?
The reason USB drivers exist for devices is because they're clearly not all the same and all have manufacturer specific features - would this be the same if HP distributed Canon's USB printer drivers with all of their new inkjets? What happens if Canon changes the drivers? Why can't HP write their own drivers?
Palm has a way to sync iTunes with the Pre - it's provided and documented by Apple. They decided to just spoof an iPod and skip all the software development though.
But Apple provides an API that does exactly what Palm wanted to do - sync the Pre with iTunes. All they had to do was look at this published API and write a plugin. Apple aren't trying to "force Palm out" via anticompetitive practices, they are just saying "if you want to sync with iTunes, stop spoofing our USB ID and write your own plugin using the published API for iTunes sync".
How can they stifle competitoon when APPLE PUBLISHES AN API THAT DOES EXACTY WHAT PALM WAS TRYING TO DO - all Palm had to do was look at that API and write a plugin. iTunes does sync with third party players - you just have to write a plugin.
What's not ok is to think "well, we can't be bothered to write a plugin using Apple's published API, I know, we'll just change our vendor ID to tell iTunes we're an iPod and it will use the iPod plugin".
Apple are not being anticompetitive here - iTunes does sync with third party devices, using a public API provided by Apple. Let me just be clear here since you don;t seem to understand what "anticompetitive means" - if Palm want to sync the Pre with iTunes, they can write a plugin for it.
You're having a laugh right? The GUI and menu options between different versions of Windows is all over the place, certainly compared to OS X (unless you count the architecture shift from OS 9 > OS X).
So, assuming you're an IT pro, since LDAP servers and adding machines to a network is that sort of thing, would you care to elaborate on some of these "major changes between releases of Leopard" that are throwing you off?
I know they changed the Energy Saver icon from an incandescent lightbulb into a compact fluorescent, but that is hardly going to break a cheat sheet on how to change power management options.
Slashdot Mirror
Woolworths are applying for a generic trademark - ie, one that could conceivably (although clearly unlikely) be applied to computers - this is what Apple is attempting to prevent.
What if Woolworths makes a handheld iPod-like device (or an app for the iPhone) that enables you to buy fruit in store by just taking pictures of the barcodes and then going to the till and getting it scanned, and then a staff member goes off and collects all your produce and delivers it to your car/home/etc, and then puts this logo on there.
90% (or more) people are clearly going to see that it's not a product made by Apple, but it is in Apple's interests to protect their trademark in their product area.
Woolworths has no such device or app, but a generic trademark would allow them to brand it as such in the future if they ever do produce something like that. Apple is just pre-empting it.
There are plenty of apple logos out in the world that don't conflict with Apple computer - the ones Apple feel might do in the future, they will address.
Trust me, there are just as many "zealots" that will do the exact same thing if you post anything positive about Apple.
It's not about the facts for either of the two ends of that spectrum, it's all about bludgeoning your "point" across with stupid moderation. It's also the reason that clearly, blatantly false information that is either pro/anti $LARGE-COMPUTER-MAKER will get +5 insightful very quickly, even if 2 seconds on Google will show you the information is clearly false.
It happens in MS threads, Apple threads, Linux threads all equally (in pro and anti forms).
People criticising Apple (justly or not) are not unique in their illegitimate threats to their karma scores.
Chemist, but I'm not the poster you asked, just also have found that a Mac has always been the best tool for my job too.
If by "acting like a petulant child" you mean "paid a settlement fee and agreed not to enter the music business" then yes.
And protecting your trademark is a requirement to keeping it, so Apple had no choice, even if the logos only have a passing resemblance (both are very obviously images of apples) and they are both in different markets, they have to at least put in a token trademark infringement suit, even if it goes nowhere or is dismissed.
If they do not do this, they face the possibility later down the line that their trademark becomes generic (whether you can argue that a stylised fruit is generic already is debatable), since if they don;t defend their trademark, it becomes fair game.
Incidentally, Apple (computer) settled the trademark infringement suit with Apple records for a cash sum and an agreement to stay out of the music business - an agreement Apple records later sued Apple (computer) for because they claimed that playing back MIDI files was "entering the music business".
Being the music industry, you can see how they thought that - they're not ones to allow facts to get in the way of a good lawsuit.
Right wing fundamentalist Christians totally would.
They'd just call it the righteous hand of USA-lovin Jesus.
Elegant in programmin terms - not in user experience.
Also, Apple is intentionally preventing a third party from pretending to be an Apple product.
If Palm want to sync the Pre with iTunes there is a fully documented, Apple-supported way to do it.
And you can get your player to "sync" back to iTunes - I have done it before on several third party players.
There's a whole section in Apple Dev about how to do it
Yes, yes they do.
I know because I personally use such software.
I'm even using it as I type this post.
Oh wait, how can I, you told me it doesn't exist.
You really don't understand what a monopoly is do you?
the USB IF acts to maintain the USB standard - and it features vendor ID codes that are assured (by the specification) to be unique to each individual vendor who uses them.
They *must* act to prevent other companies from just deciding to use a Vendor ID *that does not belong to them* (read: have not licenced to use because the ID has been licenced by someone else, namely Apple).
How on earth did this get +1 informative?
The sole reason the USB IF exists in the first place is to prevent (or correct) issues like this arising, when one company breaks the spec for their own ends.
It's not even code theft. It's reporting to be Apple, using a vendor ID unique code that Apple paid the USB IF for - a code that was assured to be unique to Apple.
No one is breaking the law on either side. Palm is breaking a contract with the USB IF though, and Apple has every right to ensure that devices that report Apple's unique, purchased USB ID on the USB bus are in fact Apple devices.
The analogy I would use is that Palm is forging tickets to a free concert put on by Apple - it's not illegal, and the concert venue has every right to impose more stringent security checks to look more closely for fraudulent tickets.
It does exist. Palm is just lazy, and it seems you are too.
I have used several non-Apple music players with iTunes belonging to various friends from multiple vendors and they sync just fine.
It's not as elegant as an iPod, since it doesn't use the main Library file, but it does use the plaintext XML file that iTunes keeps up to date with its main library. This file does contain playlists, tracks, info and so on that allow you to sync with iTunes.
Apple is complaining because it signed a contract with the USB IF and paid a great deal of money/legal expense/time/hoop jumping to obtain a USB vendor ID: a unique identifier for their company, assured by the USB IF that any device that reports this little code is an Apple product.
They're not complaining about competition. They even offer a way to use third party music players sync and work with iTunes - they just don't include in the instructions and API "copy our vendor ID and pretend to be an iPod".
Total rubbish.
Palm has no legal right to do anything of the sort. They are in breach of contract with the USB-IF by using Apple's vendor ID but that's not illegal (in so far as the act itself isn't, and breach of contract between two entities is not a crime).
Apple has absolutely no obligation to provide third party compatibility with iTunes for third party devices - they do offer an API that allows you to use third party devices with iTunes, but Palm has chosen not to go that route. Apple also does not have a monopoly on the music and cellphone market, and they don't have a monopoly on jukebox music software (that they give away for free I might add) or even online music stores (not that the iTMS has anything to do with this dispute, unless you choose to buy songs on there, and even then you can easily [using iTunes] move them into a format that will work with any music player).
iTunes exists to support iPods and iPhones. They have absolutely no obligation to make it play nice with third party players - they give it away for free after all, and it is very clear what it is designed to do.
Apple is very clear about what it offers up front - if you don;t want to be part of the vertically integrated experience, with all of the benefits and downsides that come with it, then you are free to use other software and hardware.
What's not ok is if you're Palm and you say "well, we want to use iTunes, an app given away by Apple for free, to sync music and photos with the Pre, and we're going to do that by spoofing Apple's purchased and contractually protected USB vendor ID" - are you really surprised Apple is stopping this?
Hint: it is not illegal for them to do so, nor is it illegal for Palm to do what they are doing. They are breaching their contract with the USB IF though, which is a matter between Palm and the USB IF.
There is also no anti trust issue here.
Note the silence of the "Mac Jihad" when you're the second person to post, and anonymously at that. Really sure of your argument there, sonny eh?
Apple are still supporting older versions of OS X to this day (just upped a PPC to latest 10.5 with a recent security patch to boot), and kept up with the Classic environment for a long time.
10.6 is Intel only, but that was not surprising at all.
Other than just getting in a cheap jab at Apple while you were (incorrectly) bashing Linux for "abandoning customers", do you have anything to back up your weak arguments or did you go to the Right Wing Talk Radio Host school of debating?
No, that's not it - you are advocating the deliberate breaking of the USB IF contract that Palm signed because you think they should be allowed to break the rules "in this case".
I am saying that whether you love Apple or hate them, is irrelevant, Palm just cannot do that.
No, Apple corrected a flaw in their implementation of the USB spec that Palm exploited to get free syncing to iTunes. iTunes should never have trusted the product code alone for this very reason, and whether any incompatibility issue arose (it didn't in this case) like the drive being erased, or strange interactions with the drivers because the device is not what is expected, really have no bearing on that.
Palm then decided to break the terms of their contract with the USB IF and spoof Apple's vendor ID.
Whether you think it's "morally" right that Plam can use Apple's Vendor ID means jack shit: Palm signed an agreement with the USB IF that they would not do such a thing.
Whether you agree with Apple shutting this down is utterly, utterly irrelevant.
Except that this entire issue with the USB IF is about Palm using Apple's *vendor ID* which is totally 100% unique to Apple and should never be used by anyone other than Apple.
You can't "spoof" a product ID - the product ID is unique only when combined with the Vendor ID. It's perfectly possible for two different USB devices to have the same product ID totally by coincidence, since the product ID is for the manufacturer to differentiate between its own products - the Vendor ID+Product ID is what is unique.
The Product ID alone should not be used to uniquely identify a device.
That would be the case if your device was something standard like a USB mass storage device - an iPod, however, is not such a thing.
Sure, I suppose it *could* be, but as well as being a glorified flash drive, it also has it's own OS, and various other things that make it distinct from other cellphones/iPods/music players/etc.
The USB vendor ID exists for this exact reason, so that while the connector and general USB protocol is universal, you can do things with the attached devices that are unique to them, like upgrading the firmware for example.
What would happen if the Pre had identified itself as an Apple device and iTunes sent some code to it that was meant to do one thing, but actually erased the Pre's memory?
The reason USB drivers exist for devices is because they're clearly not all the same and all have manufacturer specific features - would this be the same if HP distributed Canon's USB printer drivers with all of their new inkjets? What happens if Canon changes the drivers? Why can't HP write their own drivers?
Palm has a way to sync iTunes with the Pre - it's provided and documented by Apple. They decided to just spoof an iPod and skip all the software development though.
You couldn't figure out how to make your iPhone play mp3s?
Box it up and return your computer to the store. You are too stupid to own a computer. Or a troll. Pick one.
But Apple provides an API that does exactly what Palm wanted to do - sync the Pre with iTunes. All they had to do was look at this published API and write a plugin. Apple aren't trying to "force Palm out" via anticompetitive practices, they are just saying "if you want to sync with iTunes, stop spoofing our USB ID and write your own plugin using the published API for iTunes sync".
How can they stifle competitoon when APPLE PUBLISHES AN API THAT DOES EXACTY WHAT PALM WAS TRYING TO DO - all Palm had to do was look at that API and write a plugin. iTunes does sync with third party players - you just have to write a plugin.
What's not ok is to think "well, we can't be bothered to write a plugin using Apple's published API, I know, we'll just change our vendor ID to tell iTunes we're an iPod and it will use the iPod plugin".
Apple are not being anticompetitive here - iTunes does sync with third party devices, using a public API provided by Apple. Let me just be clear here since you don;t seem to understand what "anticompetitive means" - if Palm want to sync the Pre with iTunes, they can write a plugin for it.
Apple's sync API, published by Apple to allow third party hardware to sync with iTunes disagrees with your comment.
You're having a laugh right? The GUI and menu options between different versions of Windows is all over the place, certainly compared to OS X (unless you count the architecture shift from OS 9 > OS X).
So, assuming you're an IT pro, since LDAP servers and adding machines to a network is that sort of thing, would you care to elaborate on some of these "major changes between releases of Leopard" that are throwing you off?
I know they changed the Energy Saver icon from an incandescent lightbulb into a compact fluorescent, but that is hardly going to break a cheat sheet on how to change power management options.